oilfields down by 60% and ira -- in iraq and insured iran's leaders knew it would not recover economically until it verifiably close off all pathways to a nuclear weapon. these efforts led to the election of president rouhani and culminated in the democratic process that produced the plan of action. the women and men of my office have worked incredibly hard over the past decade to build and enforce these measures and combat every effort to circumvent them. even now as we prepare to defend our sondary nuclear sanctions, should iran fulfill its commitments, we are simultaneously readying a battery of sanctions against iran's activity outside of the nuclear file. if human rights of bruce is abuse is inside, we will do so. thisll be building

pressure in close cooperation with our partners in europe, israel and the gulf. successes would have been possible without strong bipartisan support from the house and senate and members and staff of this committee in particular. if confirmed, i intend to build upon close relationships we have enjoyed with this committee and take on the pressing challenges ahead. i can also commit to you that if confirmed i will not rest. i sit every morning to read the latest intelligence and the threat we face are serious. we need to be vigilant, smart and aggressive. as the international landscape evolves, i'm confident we will remain at the forefront of our government's efforts to protect our national security. thank you very much for your time and consideration. i will be glad to answer any questions you may have. ubin, you have been acting as the undersecretary since february of this year. in your august 5 testimony, you

agreed with the former national security advisor susan rice that we can expect some portion of iran's current frozen assets to fund more terror and other illicit activities. you concluded that treasury's office of national intelligence needs to wrap up its efforts to go after iran's illicit funding streams. how would you lead now the ramping up of such efforts? mr. szubin: thank you. it is obviously a key campaign as we move forward and one i will be spending a lot of my personal time on, because there are a lot of assets to this effort. obviously, the most visible effort is deploying new sanctions and we have done quite a lot against has ezbollah over recent years. i had analysts send out a chart for me and it is over 200 companies and officers that her

sanctioned and all of them remain under sanction, notwithstanding this deal. those sanctions, thanks to congress, have after territorial affects, by which i mean foreign banks can do business on anyone with that list will do so at their own peril and have the risk of being cut off from the u.s. financial system. in addition to the targeting effort to continue to go after the networks come officers of these terrorist groups and proxies, we have a lot to do in terms of outreach diplomatically. i think we have a lot of willing counterparts. i spoke to officials in the gulf and saudi arabia and uae -- my next foreign trip will be to those countries -- i hear a different attitude when it comes to taking on iran's proxies and i think there is a real opportunity to harness the attention and use it to disrupt a lot of money flows which have been going through places like dubai and banks in the region. we continue to work very closely with our counterparts in israel

and we to do even more with europe and the on. >> since november 2011, the entire iranian financial system has been designated as a "primary money-laundering concern" for reasons under the nuclear proliferation. the financial action task force has also issued global warnings on iran's money laundering and terrorist financing risks. it is my understanding that most iranian banks will receive sanctions relief on the deal. that thepect, sir, financial practices will continue and, if so, what are your biggest concerns? mr. szubin: i want to note the finding with respect to iran's banking sector remains in place. it is not affected. u.s. sanctions with respect to the banking sector remains

untouched. that means no iranian banks can access the u.s. financial system. not to open an account and not to even execute a dollarized transaction for a split section worth of business. that remains off-limits to all iranian banks weather on the list were off. -- or off. with respect to how i expect to see iran's bank performed or behave, i think it remains to be seen. we have made very clear to iran's leaders that if we see any banks that were removed from the list engaging in support of illicith or iranian ballistic missile activities, they will find themselves back on the list. the iranians understand that. we will have to see how they behave, but the choice will be theirs. >> the sanctions are crucial to u.s. policy. i worry that the u.s. government

is not taking maximum advantage of these. when thinking about maximizing sanctions in the future, i believe we need to approach sanction policies from both a technical and strategic basis for long-term planning and contingency scenarios. in your opinion, how can the government organize itself better and approach strategic and contingency planning for sanctions more effectively?> how can we do a better job? mr. szubin: it is a question we have to ask ourselves continuously. having been a part of it since day one, i have seen as evolved. some of our greatest strides have come in our intelligence office. it is truly unique in the world. i don't know of any other finance ministry that has an intelligence office that is focused on using our financial expertise in using our financial information that they are really masters of. where our analysis

has done so much more sophisticated and has been drawn upon by policy makers, on a regular basis. do, the of what one can longer-term strategic thinking is critical. the world has now taken notice of how horrible these tools are and we see new and adaptive techniques and we see how they can be used against us. we have to be very careful and judicious with how we use them, but also be prepared to combat them should we see others try to draw the same tools to weaken our national security. mr. shelby: senator brown. semr. brown: you have one of the most difficult jobs in the city serving taxpayers. when i think about the unending number of hours, time away from your family, special thanks to miriam and your children who i

know you miss. as you travel the world especially during the negotiations and put somewhat effort into this -- thank you for that. thank you also in meetings that i've had with you. secretary lou and secretary kerry -- thank you for your response in putting in proactive efforts to deal with and enhance those proactively to address the issues of iranian financing of terrorism. i know you will be expected to do and i know you will. i know tfi has a lot of critical national security responsibilities. i would like to get a sense of your priorities. sanction enforcement, money laundering, terrorism financing -- describe to the committee your priorities of treasury efforts would fit into the broader government efforts and

illicit finance. mr. szubin: in terms of my priorities going forward, i put iran at the forefront and that is not just making sure they adhere to all their commitments. the sanctions are really the or else and serves as a deterrent, but also all the non-nuclear activity that i referenced in my opening statement. alongside that, our counterterrorism effort -- it is why we were created. it is in our name. it has to be right at the forefront as well. particularly, our efforts against isil which has posed a very serious challenge in terms of cutting off its financing. i can say that when you look at a group like isil and compare it to al qaeda, the financing challenges are night and day, given the territory that they control and its ability to extort funds from people in its territory and draw the national resources in the territory it controls. it is a massive challenge, but

it is one we are focused on not just by the other members of the u.s. government, the intelligence and dod, but also a huge coalition internationally. it is one of our strengths which is how unanimous the international community cyber which is a threat which has grown more and more prominent and more or worrisome. hereto, sanctions or are one part of the strategy. law enforcement of missy and intelligence, we have enough tools would now have sanctions to rules will. malicious actors, we do have to use the prevent and deter bad activity. >> i want to ask a question a

bit more parochial array we met several times to discuss remittances of somalia to diaspora communities in the united states. we met separately with the prime minister of somalia to discuss these issues. i know you have been working to mitigate concerns while ensuring standards are upheld and at the world bank is providing technical assistance to the somali government to build in this capacity. can you give the committee an update on the treasury efforts in this area and progress toward restoring a free flow of remittances from somalis in columbus and minneapolis to somalis in africa. mr. szubin: i was just in minneapolis last month to meet with the community, to meet leaders, and they are very worried. one thing i will say is that the

fund flows have not stopped. they see a pattern and that bank accounts have been closed. i have been told that the funding continues to go in that remittances are arriving. the situation is far from ideal. the would raise are not about withemitters, the concerns respect to terrorism financing go to what happens to the money when it gets to somalia. that is an intensely challenging issue because there is almost no central bank, no regulatory system when it comes to oversight in somalia. read assertto confidence will allow remittances to flow more easily is going to depend upon the

efforts of the prime minister. i have the opportunity to speak with them too. he is undertaking a very serious that. the state department and treasury department will do everything we can to assist them, to build strength and inspire confidence. >> thank you for your service to the country. i very much appreciate you telling us a little bit about your family history and your family support, and i have had tremendous respect for what tf i does the 700 people you work with there. in spite of the great work that you have done, and others for you, i think you understand there is a bipartisan majority here that feels that not to you

my but the administration squanders those efforts. instead of ending iran's nuclear program, we basically are ofowing industrialization that program. i know that was not your negotiation, but obviously most disappointed at that squandered opportunity. had the president achieved what he said he wanted to do, which was end the program, we would have 100 people cheering and supporting that. that is not what has occurred. that is no reflection on you. there are sanctions put in place , the i essay act which expires at the end of 2015. i assume that since the snapback

provisions that were negotiated as part of the deal rely on the fact that there have to be that you to snapback would be very supportive of us extending i essay immediately so that sanctions are there to snap back to. mr. szubin: thank you for your kind words. i cannot agree more about the talented many women in the office. you're right, i'm not a diplomat. i did have the opportunity to participate in a number of rounds, and i believe a deal to be a strong one and two achieved the president's objective of closing all the pathways for ron to obtain a nuclear weapon for 15 years and beyond. >> and would be good if you did not really talk about that. the fact is, the president said they would end nuclear program, and we did not do that. we are agreeing to

industrialization and they involved in miracles over time but always is it is capitulated. what i would like to hear some reauthorized with your some more, sanctions that were in use -- in place and do so immediately. mr. szubin: using the full leverage of snap backs, and entirely in line with your own, we need to have the leverage in order to punish breaches that occur. with respect to the iran sanctions act from it does not fire until the close of next her, and the administration position has then that it is a mature to bring out the sunset of the renewal until we get to the timeframe. >> leads us to believe that there are concerns that you have

made commitments to iran that is going to not be the case. the gives always good to have it for certain. reasons will rush is to create uncertainty. back to this, think it would be very good for the world to know that the site going to that provide certainty. i would hope that supportive if we were to pass those are the next 60 days, the sanctions taking place. mr. szubin: the certainty is there. every aspect of it will remain full effect, notwithstanding any attempts to renew it early.

>> i know you're reciting company line life, and i'm grateful that you against you. i wish you would quit reciting the company line. really, should really bipartisan way, i think we could pass it strongly. should we attempt to that in the next 60 days, i think the administration would propose that an expert some point. think we will have a seat that is the case. sanctions you about for parent i have no objection whatsoever to us from sanctions ourselves as you are doing same, relative to terrorist acts. if we were to impose those on iran, there would no objection.

mr. szubin: as you would expect, and would all depend upon the content of the sanctions. to the extent that congress is adding to the pressure of terrorist proxies, and edit your tools to combine them, that is something the restriction what to look at. if the intent of the sanctions effort is to try to take a way the wise deal. >> the irgc is involved in terrorism. something being looked at. how do you feel about as anating the irgc

foreign terrorist organization, the dealould it impact if congress decided to do so? mr. szubin: the irgc is a parent organization right and has a number of subsidiaries. we have designated the force, to support military activity terrorist, because it was the most apt elements to label as a terrorist threat read. the parent remains designated for its human rights abuses. >> i think you understand the huge gaping hole that exist. you are holding, but all the substances area's going to

benefit hugely from what is ready to happen. those subsidiaries float cash of that holding company. it would be crippling to their terrorist activity right my question to you, if we were to do so, it certainly would cripple them far more than what they could generate more benefit. mr. szubin: under our human rights designation as they would be under the terrorist designation.

they are currently prohibited. any foreign company that does business, i will be very specific, those are some of remain on our list that are not coming off. because of congress, they are extraterritorial consequences that would be to say with the terrorist designation, but those effects are in place right now. >> you would not object? mr. szubin: i cannot comment on congress doing a dissing nation. in my experience that is the form the list the disease is that entities as terrorist organizations. i'm commenting for a legal perspective than it did at the goodwood affect the outcome either way. >> i look forward to meeting with you. thanks for your public service.

>> senator heitkamp? >> thank you for holding this hearing and poured on the -- and moving forward on the nomination. he has appeared in front reading at least one time, and i've always enormously impressed and enormously grateful that you have decided to use your obvious talents and services to this country and service of security of this country. by sheer senator corker's concern about making sure this country is sure about terrorism sanctions is our little yet human rights sanctions and making sure the american public

knows that we would continue to sanction. i want to address crude oil exports. you and i talked about this. i am deeply concerned about the policy of this country which restricts americans exportof crude oil, of the oil that we produce here. it gives us an opportunity to be competitive with raining oil that will be in the marketplace.

we are terry is about how you see this from the standpoint of sanctions. how you would be viewing the lifting of the export ban in the frame of continuing to curtail and put economic pressure on not only around but also russia and other bad actors in the world who are funding the fed actions with oil revenue and their domestic production. mr. szubin: unfortunately, the question does go on my area of expertise in terms of what the potential effect with the of relaxing those restrictions and how we would play out. >> can do just opine for me?

mr. szubin: i'm going to support such discipline she severely. there are others in the administration for much more conversant with visit would be happy to continue the discussion. >> for me this is a critical issue and it has to be viewed in the frame of what we're doing right now with overall sanctions. it has to be addressed in this context. i think it is a wonderful opportunity for our country to use this new growth in our energy resources for smart and better diplomacy and provide european energy security, which i think the lack of energy security, among our allies, has created a lot of economic disruption. we will continue to push for this, we will continue to push

for increased sanctions on anyone who engages in terrorism and human rights violations i look forward to continuing our discussion with you. enter your family, who are very proud behind you, i want to thank you for raising a very amusing young man who's using -- amazing a man who's using his talents for the public good. >> thank you for taking the time. congratulations on your nomination until your wonderful family. i want to talk about snapback sanctions on their effectiveness. the president has said that sanctions are not stopping iran from advancing the nuclear program. he says that the only airplane the tip is war because sanctions would not stop around from advancing their nuclear program. he is also said this would be the punishment if they violate this deal and it will be

effective. it seems to me contradictory to say that the economy was that is currently struggling it is not going to be deterred by sanctions. at some indeterminate time in the future, if they are stronger in their conventional military, that snapback sanctions would effective at that weight. could you help me explain that inconsistency? mr. szubin: i would not resume to speak for the president or what he was intending with his remarks. i think the point he and many others have made this throughout the timeframe from 2005 to 2011, while we were ratcheting up sanctions, it has enrichment program. it continues to stockpile as it centrifuges. the section of losing very heavy thumb on the scale. it was having a determined of impact on how the he hated with

their approach at the negotiating table. the sanctions alone did not stop the enrichment. it was the concessions they made to allow with the inspectors to export their stockpile by 90%, to bring down there centrifuges and infrastructure route all of those are going to move us from the current breakout time it is those changes that we so desperately needed for all of us who were worried about their nuclear program. in terms of snapback, it is a very potent force in for all the reasons that you have spoken about it iran has seen firsthand that there's a law luster that they will become self-sufficient. they are not looking for an economy of resistance. they are not looking or being wholly dependent upon the solid goods. they are desperate for

technology, good, and services from the west and the rest of the world. the throat that they could, from under the sanctions but fall back under them if they did not abide by the deal is a very real one and a political one for ron's leadership. >> and they started because of the pain that the sanctions have brought, and they are caught cheating, their economy will be stronger and he will be demonstrating the political desire to cheat on this deal. do you understand the inconsistency i am worried about? mr. szubin: everyone acknowledges that the sanctions were the key pressure points that run them to the table.

i hesitate here because there is a law professor in attendance, but i think we would all agree -- >> she was my professor. she was a professor that i was a student. my role time is running down. you were talking about advancing the reauthorization of it. that is mostly a political and policy question. from your standpoint, if the act is not reauthorized until the last few months of 2016, would that create any type of break in the way that you administer the provisions? mr. szubin: no. >> and i want to discuss the attention in the nuclear deal threat reduction act. on the one hand it says that the

u.s. owned subsidiaries cannot do business with iran. on the other hand, it suggests that the president will license those subsidiaries. will you explain the legal underpinnings that we have appeared to have made? mr. szubin: excuse me for the interruption. should the wrong complete all of its steps, something that is still six months away, part of the relief they will earn is that foreign subsidiaries of u.s. parents will once again be allowed to do business with the wrong so long as they meet some very difficult conditions. they cannot be exporting and products from the u.s. heard they cannot be obtaining a services. it truly has to be a standalone operation.

in terms of the iran threat reduction act, the provision contains the licensing authority to allow for certain categories of activities for those foreign subsidiaries. >> congratulations on your nomination would it be fair to say that the sanctions act was a significant tool in getting around to the negotiating table? mr. szubin: it was not one of the primary pressure points. they were far more impactful. but part of the consolation that rock around the table and give us a much leverage. >> when he referred to the 2010 in your speech before the

committee dramatically advancing efforts on crude oil sales, you're referring to? mr. szubin: the ncaa provisions. they reference them as a penalty structure. when i talked about crude oil of measures you know so well that says you cannot do any transactions with the central bank of the iran unless you are bringing down, your purchases from around. that is what led to exports to fall from 2.4 million barrels to 1.1 million barrels a day. it has a very dramatic impact. >> there no question that the secretary nature of concern iran sections act was a very significant hammer at the end of the day. would that be a fair statement? mr. szubin: the penalties that are sent out are referenced in a long these other stretches we're

talking about. the penalty structure is in meaningful one. >> what future you have as it comes to the iran sanctions act which is up for reauthorization at the end of this coming year? >> the administration's fear is that there is no need for early renewal. it remains in full effect until because of next year. >> and when i left's and collapses, then what? that is an eventuality we're not even close to this point. >> and his assertive because it makes it very clear. will expire on that day. if we want to talk about significance back as a deterrent toward violation it seems me that without the law, iran knows that the administration does not seem to be disposed to support reauthorization of the law even as it is a with all of the waiver authorities the president

has. if i know i'm going to wait a year, it will be meaningful to me that my further deterrent concerns will be significantly reduced. mr. szubin: i am not aware of any discussions within the administration that will lead to a setback leverage the dissipated trade the whole structure of the deal is to keep that leverage in place to ensure that iran adheres to its commitment. >> it seems to me that the jcp away has language that suggests that the administration is not supporting reauthorization. i am convinced that if was a real authorization for war it would have a robust support because it passed 99 to zero when it was authored.

if you want deterrence, it still needs to be in existence to be deterred two. i just do not get were the administration is that unless. i get a sense that if iran violates, particularly in small intermediate ways, that we are going to largely be on our own and enforcing and sending a clear message that violations are not acceptable. is that a fair statement? mr. szubin: we would retouch or foreign partners. in particular, the europeans have a lot invested right now. before this deal, and lot of the sanctions were u.s. only right that this point with the commitments they would be breaking the commitments they may not just to the is but to the entire community.

>> they cannot invest because of other nonnuclear related sanctions the only companies in the world that are going to get into the uranium market are european as other companies therefore, they are going to have both investments of major national companies like siemens, airbus and others. the countries themselves may use their funds to invest in iran. it is going to be a lot harder to have them come along with us in any sanctionable item after all that takes place. i think about acknowledging that is to be somewhat unreal about the consequences we're going to face moving forward. as part of your overall portfolio and what you are

doing, the question of enforcement of the law on the castro regime, i have a serious concern as to how the administration have interpreted a general license. i want you to give me what is your interpretation of a general license. mr. szubin: a general license is a standing authorization that is issued that allows for a set of activities that would otherwise be prohibited to go on so long as it meets all of the specified conditions it does not do anything but a specific license would do other than it is a efficiency. rather than the company's applications by one by one, it is the humanitarian transaction, or the for policy was supportive of every company when they want to do it --

>> a general license this when you got the same request and you up with the same result for purposes of expediency and efficiency. when a general license ultimately swallows up the congressional attempt as in the case of cuba where you are giving a general license for the purposes of travel, and where travel under the administration hosel's are supposed to help purposeful elements, and a general license is basically a good honor system, where you do not actually go ahead and enforce whether or not the person is following the criteria under the purported purposes of that license, then there is no way to know. you have created a huge truck

for unlimited travel, not purposeful travel because you are not enforcing purposeful travel. this creates a real concern for me. i would suggest, because if a general license in this case can be interpreted to this way, that basically subverts the congressional intent and law. what is to say we will not see general license is as a relates to a wrong or any other place in which an administration is going to interpret the general license in such a way that allows them to run a mack truck right through it and undermine the very purposes of the legislative intent of the law itself?

i certainly, based upon the experience i have seen here, will not be supporting any legislation that creates general licenses for this or any other administration because it basically -- as the author of the law, it totally undermines what was the personal intent -- congressional intent. mr. szubin: there is no ability to do what we cannot do with a specific license print in each of the instances that she reference, but i have to adhere to the 12 categories that are set out. they settled conditions to restrict that which is purposeful. >> you go, you come back, you never know if they actually went to mr. szubin: as an office of 700 people, our ability to check on specific licenses is somewhat limited in we are not a burden to do the checks and actions they are doing what we have authorized to do. >> able to get an itinerary to

determine that it was possible travel as delineated. let us also that you are doing now is fundamentally different. to suggest that a general license is for efficiency purposes is fine. but as the axis the only requirement and you need to for general license. when you have 12 different criteria of what possible travel and do not know what the person is doing to achieve purposeful travel will wish you were doing before it has specific limitations to it.

they found individuals who were outside of that deal. they would therefore have an enforced all action against them. if it can happen here, i am concerned about rss will happen in other sanctionable entities in places in the world because that basically is a green light to do what you want to do and circumvent the will of congress. mr. szubin: i think a lot of your question goes to enforcement and making sure that we're going to take the sanctions seriously. whether it is the terms of the

general license or the specific license was that they will face real consequences in that has been a big focus of mine, and the enforcement of sanctions has never been asked of in terms of the size and volume of penalties. i also grew you that going forward it will be critically important in all of our sections programs to make sure that people understand that was prohibited is truly prohibited. we will not take violations lately. >> thank you mr. chairman. you have been nominated to be in charge of sanction enforcement community have been serving in lateral since last february. he recently traveled to israel to discuss limiting the deal to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. given the critical employment

ports of connecting the deal, counting their financing and all the other important functions of your office, i think they should confirm you to this job as soon as possible. in recent testimony you made clear that if we back out of this deal the international coalition would fracture. while the u.s. could go it alone with his other sanctions, we know they are not nearly as effective. you stated most of the billions of dollars that could be released iran complies with the nuclear deal are held in the eu, in china, japan and india, south korea and other foreign countries. the u.s. alone cannot prevent iran from getting access to the money to i just have one question. i want to highlight this again. if we walk with from this deal, is a more likely or less likely that our international partners will continue to have sanctions, refuse to trade with iran, or block axis two frozen assets? >> i think it is less likely we will see aggressive leasing of sanctions if we walk away from the deal that we spent two years with our partners negotiating trade. mr. szubin: it seems a better path forward is maintaining unity with our national national partners that way, if they

cheats, we can risk on to strengthen support of the world behind this, which is critical for effective sanctions were i appreciate your work on this. there is one other topic i would like to address. human traffickers use of the international banking system. human trafficking is modern day slavery. it is a global business heard profits are estimated to be as high as $150 billion a year paid they have to use credit cards as money transfers ever single day i the money transmitted falls under existing anti-money laundering laws. these rules require financial

institutions to determine a laundering report suspected illegal activity to law enforcement. i know we are taking steps in this area, but i am concerned that money laundering related to human trafficking is not received as much attention by financial institutions or the regulators as drug trafficking money or terrorist financing. i have legislation to ensure that the treasury department and other regulators work more closely with financial institutions to stop human traffickers use of the safety system. i also want to add the anti-money laundering expertise that you have at treasury to the presidents interagency task force to monitor and combat human trafficking. the treasury responsible is the

key agency for any money laundering programs. so i will now if you'll commit to working with me to make sure that both regulators and the financial industry are doing everything possible to shut down financing for human trafficking. mr. szubin: senator, i'm pleased to make that commitment. i couldn't agree more about the severity, i think the escalating severity of the threat. i think you'll be pleased to hear that i was being briefed earlier this week by the director of fnsa about their efforts and they've seen a tremendous jump in reporting from financial institutions after finsn put out an advisory alerting financial institutions to sort of the red flags or hallmarks of human trafficking in terms of the financial transactions, they've gotten thousands of suspicious activity reports that are then accessible to and harnessed by law enforcement, state, local,

around the country. so i think there's a lot there, but there's so much more to do. and it all starts with intelligence or law enforcement work to be able to lead us to the bad actors. we have a lot still ahead of us. senator warner: well, i appreciate that very much. human traffickers need the banking system, and stronger financial regulations give us the tools to shut them down. so this is something that i want to make sure that we make a priority. it matters to people all around the world. so thank you very much, mr. szubin. >> senator donnelly. senator donnelly: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. szubin, thank you and your whole family. going to take your boys out afterwards and turn them into notre dame football fans before the day is over. mr. szubin: well-behaved notre dame football fans. proud to see you do it. mr. donnelly: and to your family. i know how much you've traveled.

to your family, thanks. it's really, really important and it's helped make our country a stronger place. and helped save lives. mr. szubin, with the agreement that was just voted on, a big portion of this is not just a nuclear piece, as you know, but what's going on in the ground in the middle east every single day, and much of that success we will will have is going to rest on what you and your colleagues do. and so i just want to make sure what creates confidence in israel for saudi arabia, for jordan, for those gulf states is when they look and see iran has not moved one more inch on the ground. when they see that missiles being interdicted. i'd like to know, for instance, for hezbollah, what are the -- to interdict missile and weapons systems to make sure their inventory goes down and we hope to zero.

mr. szubin: i have been personally -- my office has been personal low focused on the threats you're referencing. sadly, i don't think we're going to bring their inventory down to sdemrour, but we still need to do everything we can to interdict any shipments we see or learn about and to be able to curb, not just the volumes of shipments they get but the sophistication. when i was in israel recently, i was hearing about some very troubling advances in terms of hezbollah's missile capabilities or rocket capabilities and we have to keep them from making those advances because it means deaths. the more precise their rockets are, the more people will die and we know that for certainty. we have to be very focused on this. obviously the bulk of the intelligence and interdiction effort is going to be outside of my lane, outside of the sanctions lane but we can be helpful in this effort in this a secondary capacity and that's

exposing the procurement companies because they don't get these parts indigenously. they need to order technology and some of the sophisticated equipment from abroad. sometimes from places like china, southeast asia. well, that means they're doing financial transactions, that means they're engaging in shipping or airplane cargo shipments, all of those are vulnerabilities that we can target and you've seen my office in the past year go after procurement fronts for hezbollah, including for their unmanned aerial vehicle program. and it's an area we're going to continue to be very focused on in the months ahead. senator donnelly: we cannot leave any stone unturned. if we find a procurement company that's providing equipment, we need to let everybody know who they are. we need to go after them. we need to create more and more additional confidence with our allies. we need to make sure that the actual instruments of death and danger are cut off and you have a full mission from all of us

that we need you to be one of the point people on this effort. additionally, president rouhani was talking about iran's intentions in regard to certain weapons. and that they would not ask for permission or abide by resolutions. how are you going to enforce the arms export and ballistic missile restrictions outlined under u.n. security council resolution 2231? mr. szubin: so those provisions remain in place. notwithstanding president rouhani's words, we're going to hold iran to those commitments in the sense we are going to do everything we can to try to cut off any intended shipments and try to prevent that technology from coming into iran's possession. senator donnelly: some general questions i want to make sure you answered. if you answered them already i apologize. under the deal, will the irgc still be subject to u.s. counterterrorism sanctions and human rights?

mr. szubin: yes. senator donnelly: if you fully enforce sanctions on the irgc? mr. szubin: yes. senator donnelly: will you not hesitate any sanction that engages in sanctionable activity, including entities that's receiving relief from nuclear-related sanctions? mr. szubin: yes. senator donnelly: i know how much time, heart, effort you've put into this but the additional component in this whole agreement is how we do on the ground. the confidence of our friends and our allies is going to be directly related to how successful we are in pushing back and in giving them space to have success, our friends. and so your nonstop efforts in that are crucial as we look forward to and are something that we absolutely have to have. mr. szubin: thank you, senator. >> mr. szubin, we appreciate your appearance today.

you and your family and i believe you're imminently qualified for the job. we'll go from here. thank you. mr. szubin: thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> which one of you as a running back? [laughter] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: good evening. i'm speaking to you tonight at a very serious moment in our

history. they cap met is convening and the leaders of congress are meeting with the president. the state department and army and navy officials have been with the president all afternoon. the japanese ambassador was talking to the president at the very time that japan's airships were bombing our citizens in hawaii and the philippines, and sinking one of our transports. tomorrow morning, congress will have to be ready for action. eleanor roosevelt is the longest serving first lady for an unprecedented 12 years. her husband, unknown to the public, was physically limited by the effects of polio. she dedicated her life to political and social changes and her legacy continues today as she is discussed as a possible face of the $10 bill. eleanor roosevelt, this sunday night on c-span's original series, first ladies.

examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. for martha washington to michelle obama, sunday at 8:00 eastern. announcer: president obama talks about the 2016 budget. president obama: hi, everybody. it's hard to believe, but it was seven years ago this week that one of wall street's biggest investment banks went bankrupt, triggering a meltdown on wall street and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. and in the months that followed, millions of americans lost their jobs, their homes, and the savings they'd worked so hard to build. today's a different story. over the past five and a half years, our businesses have created more than 13 million new

jobs. the unemployment rate is lower than it's been in over seven years. manufacturing is growing. housing is bouncing back. we've reduced our deficits by two-thirds. and 16 million more americans now know the security of health insurance. this is your progress. it's because of your hard work and sacrifice that america has come back from crisis faster than almost every other advanced nation on earth. we remain the safest, strongest bet in the world. of course, you might not know all that if you only listened to the bluster of political season, when it's in the interest of some politicians to paint america as dark and depressing as possible. but i don't see it that way. i've met too many americans who prove, day in and day out, that this is a place where anything is possible. yes, we have a lot of work to do to rebuild a middle class that's had the odds stacked against it now for decades.